[PASSED] Protected Status in Wartime

[Separatist Peoples]

Protected Status in Wartime
Human Rights | Significant

---

Praising the protected status accorded to certain parties in armed conflict;

Echoing the notion that such protections are developed in the interest of all parties, civilian and combatant;

Appalled at their abuse, which inherently degrades those mutual restraints and makes the conclusion or relief of a conflict a distant goal;

Certain that the few, necessary restrictions on warfare that this august Assembly has sought to emplace to be a fair balance between strategic interests and civilian protection, and;

Endeavoring to prevent those abuses that do equal harm to innocent bystanders and civilians and the brave soldiers proudly serving their nation’s highest call to duty;

The General Assembly enacts the following measures:

1. During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not falsely utilize the protected status accompanying the symbols or uniforms unique to
humanitarian relief workers or organizations, or unarmed medical personnel.

2. During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not falsely utilize the protected status accompanying the symbols or uniforms of neutral or uninvolved parties with the intention of engaging the enemy, shielding themselves from enemy action, otherwise disguising forces to execute a military objective, or for the general purpose of upsetting the neutrality of any party.

3. During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves as such with the intention of engaging the enemy, shielding themselves from enemy action, or to otherwise execute a military objective, with the singular exception of those individuals escaping Prisoner of War status as defined by WA law. Member states’ combatants are not restricted from utilizing civilian equipment or clothing, provided they alter or mark them in a clear and obviously recognizable way so as to prevent being mistaken for civilians, or otherwise remain immediately recognizable as combatants.

4. During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not falsely utilize the protected status guaranteed to any other particular category or group of individuals and their associated symbols, subject to the immunities and exceptions granted by General Assembly law.

5. Member states shall consider actions contrary to the provisions of this law to be an abuse of protected status in wartime, and therefore an illegal war crime.

6. Member states shall consider command responsibility in the prosecution of the abuse of protected status in wartime, and shall consider orders to the contrary of these provisions to be manifestly illegal. Member states shall further ensure that subordinates can refuse such orders without fear of penalty.

7. Nothing in this law shall be construed as preventing ruses or deceptions in armed conflict that do not rely upon deception by inviting the confidence of an enemy with regard to protected status under World Assembly law.

"So...Have at it!"

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Don't buy this as Human Rights. It is basically a (minor) restriction on freedom of expression! If anything, it should be Moral Decency or Political Stability for that reason.

IC follows:

"Yet another enviably on point draft on a worthy, international topic.

"The thing that leaps out is 'military forces'. WA law is inconsistent in this regard, but specifying military forces seems to exempt paramilitary agents and irregulars."

"Except of course, I'm an idiot, so disregard that point."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[CreepyCut]

J'adore.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Wasn't this tried before?

[Separatist Peoples]

Wasn't this tried before?

"This has a dramatically more narrow scope, and has no affect on wearing enemy uniforms."

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Wasn't this tried before?

"This has a dramatically more narrow scope, and has no affect on wearing enemy uniforms."

Really not seeing anything game breaking here on our side. Category doesn't seem to be a problem either. Will support.

Prime Minister Pearson sends his warmest regards.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Don't buy this as Human Rights. It is basically a (minor) restriction on freedom of expression! If anything, it should be Moral Decency or Political Stability for that reason.

IC follows:

"Yet another enviably on point draft on a worthy, international topic.

"The thing that leaps out is 'military forces'. WA law is inconsistent in this regard, but specifying military forces seems to exempt paramilitary agents and irregulars."

"Except of course, I'm an idiot, so disregard that point."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: I haven't forgotten you, DSR, just can't make a detailed reply yet!

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Don't buy this as Human Rights. It is basically a (minor) restriction on freedom of expression! If anything, it should be Moral Decency or Political Stability for that reason.

IC follows:

"Yet another enviably on point draft on a worthy, international topic.

"The thing that leaps out is 'military forces'. WA law is inconsistent in this regard, but specifying military forces seems to exempt paramilitary agents and irregulars."

"Except of course, I'm an idiot, so disregard that point."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: I can see why this would be viewed as curtailing rights to expression, but I cannot think of any way that dressing military units in the garb of Neutraltonia to get in close to a Bigtopian force is really an attempt at expressing something. My thoughts were that this protected certain classes of combatants from being deceived and assaulted, much like Rules of Surrender did. That, at least, was my thinking. The argument could be made for this being International Security, as it tends to lean towards increased spending through judicial enforcement and using more open, and therefore riskier, strategies, but I’m really not certain about Moral Decency. I really don’t think this should be IS, honestly.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Don't buy this as Human Rights. It is basically a (minor) restriction on freedom of expression! If anything, it should be Moral Decency or Political Stability for that reason.

IC follows:

"Yet another enviably on point draft on a worthy, international topic.

"The thing that leaps out is 'military forces'. WA law is inconsistent in this regard, but specifying military forces seems to exempt paramilitary agents and irregulars."

"Except of course, I'm an idiot, so disregard that point."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: I can see why this would be viewed as curtailing rights to expression, but I cannot think of any way that dressing military units in the garb of Neutraltonia to get in close to a Bigtopian force is really an attempt at expressing something. My thoughts were that this protected certain classes of combatants from being deceived and assaulted, much like Rules of Surrender did. That, at least, was my thinking. The argument could be made for this being International Security, as it tends to lean towards increased spending through judicial enforcement and using more open, and therefore riskier, strategies, but I’m really not certain about Moral Decency. I really don’t think this should be IS, honestly.

Wait and see whether the new 'Regulation' category that's being discussed would work for this?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I can see why this would be viewed as curtailing rights to expression, but I cannot think of any way that dressing military units in the garb of Neutraltonia to get in close to a Bigtopian force is really an attempt at expressing something. My thoughts were that this protected certain classes of combatants from being deceived and assaulted, much like Rules of Surrender did. That, at least, was my thinking. The argument could be made for this being International Security, as it tends to lean towards increased spending through judicial enforcement and using more open, and therefore riskier, strategies, but I’m really not certain about Moral Decency. I really don’t think this should be IS, honestly.

Wait and see whether the new 'Regulation' category that's being discussed would work for this?

OOC: that's a good idea. I won't settle too firmly on anything just yet, but I'm fine with discussion on it in the mean time.

[Metox]

I think it might be easier to come at this from the other side: define what makes an unlawful combatant unlawful rather than what legitimate forces can't do. It's less open to loopholes and technicalities. For example, my army's insignia is 'coincidentally' very similar to a humanitarian aid organization?

Also, how would this ruling affect resistance fighters, or those that do not actually possess a state?

[Separatist Peoples]

I think it might be easier to come at this from the other side: define what makes an unlawful combatant unlawful rather than what legitimate forces can't do. It's less open to loopholes and technicalities. For example, my army's insignia is 'coincidentally' very similar to a humanitarian aid organization?

Also, how would this ruling affect resistance fighters, or those that do not actually possess a state?

"It's hard to say how fighters without a state could ever be affected by WA legislation, as being a member state is a prerequisite. However, I refer to "forces". That should include paramilitary or irregular combatants."

[Metox]

I think it might be easier to come at this from the other side: define what makes an unlawful combatant unlawful rather than what legitimate forces can't do. It's less open to loopholes and technicalities. For example, my army's insignia is 'coincidentally' very similar to a humanitarian aid organization?

Also, how would this ruling affect resistance fighters, or those that do not actually possess a state?

"It's hard to say how fighters without a state could ever be affected by WA legislation, as being a member state is a prerequisite. However, I refer to "forces". That should include paramilitary or irregular combatants."

Even if they're acting without authorization of their state? For example, Country A and Country B are at war. Country A has a disgruntled population that takes up arms against it. They violate rules set forth here. Does Country B have to attempt to apprehend them?

Alternately, Country B's population produces an extramilitary militia that violates these rules. Again, does Country B have to attempt to apprehend them?

For the record, I think this resolution is a great idea, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

[Separatist Peoples]

"It's hard to say how fighters without a state could ever be affected by WA legislation, as being a member state is a prerequisite. However, I refer to "forces". That should include paramilitary or irregular combatants."

Even if they're acting without authorization of their state? For example, Country A and Country B are at war. Country A has a disgruntled population that takes up arms against it. They violate rules set forth here. Does Country B have to attempt to apprehend them?

Alternately, Country B's population produces an extramilitary militia that violates these rules. Again, does Country B have to attempt to apprehend them?

For the record, I think this resolution is a great idea, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

"Based on Universal Jurisdiction, I think both A and B have to attempt to apprehend the violators, according to the text of UJ. The wording was intended to include affiliated an unaffiliated fighters so long as a member nation has jurisdiction."

[Amerieka]

jean trudy supports!

[Separatist Peoples]

jean trudy supports!

"Then Ambassador Trudeau is welcome to handle his own declarations for support. He certainly doesn't need you to do so. Speak for your own delegation, ambassador, or not at all."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Honestly this is pretty good, and we're kind of scratching around for possible objections. Nonetheless...

"Is there a danger in restricting this to "during times of armed conflict" that you're abetting preparations made before armed conflict is formally declared? For example: Bigtopia is going to declare war on Maxtopia. Bigtopia disguises its armed forces as medical personnel and moves them into position. Bigtopia then sheds the disguise and immediately declares war, giving Maxtopia no time to respond.

"I don't actually know whether that should be illegal, but it's certainly not illegal under this draft as written.

8. Nothing in this law shall be construed as preventing ruses or deceptions in armed conflict that do not rely upon deception by inviting the confidence of an enemy with regard to protected status under World Assembly law.

"I get what you mean by this, but it reads like you're saying "deceptions that do not rely on deception". Maybe a different phrasing would be a bit easier to deal with."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Metox]

"Honestly this is pretty good, and we're kind of scratching around for possible objections.

8. Nothing in this law shall be construed as preventing ruses or deceptions in armed conflict that do not rely upon deception by inviting the confidence of an enemy with regard to protected status under World Assembly law.

"I get what you mean by this, but it reads like you're saying "deceptions that do not rely on deception". Maybe a different phrasing would be a bit easier to deal with."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

To the contrary, ambassador, I would say that the clause is rather clear. Disguise and deceit is perfectly allowed so long as that the protected status under WA legislation is not used in said disguise or ruse.

However, I do agree that the 'in times of war' bit could lead to trouble in cases just as you have described.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Honestly this is pretty good, and we're kind of scratching around for possible objections.

"I get what you mean by this, but it reads like you're saying "deceptions that do not rely on deception". Maybe a different phrasing would be a bit easier to deal with."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

To the contrary, ambassador, I would say that the clause is rather clear. Disguise and deceit is perfectly allowed so long as that the protected status under WA legislation is not used in said disguise or ruse.

However, I do agree that the 'in times of war' bit could lead to trouble in cases just as you have described.

"Eh, I honestly don't think that should be implicitly illegal, using perfidy prior to a conflict starting. For one, it would be a totally uphill battle, and far worse than the ones I've fought so far. Nations would balk at that sort of limit. Secondly, it shouldn't really be a case of invoking protections to gain an advantage, as most of those protections are only in effect during conflict."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

8. Nothing in this law shall be construed as preventing ruses or deceptions in armed conflict that do not rely upon deception by inviting the confidence of an enemy with regard to protected status under World Assembly law.

"Honestly this is pretty good, and we're kind of scratching around for possible objections.

"I get what you mean by this, but it reads like you're saying "deceptions that do not rely on deception". Maybe a different phrasing would be a bit easier to deal with."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

To the contrary, ambassador, I would say that the clause is rather clear. Disguise and deceit is perfectly allowed so long as that the protected status under WA legislation is not used in said disguise or ruse....

For the sake of complete and total unambiguity, and the aesthetic virtue of not repeating words in close proximity, all that's really necessary is removal of the two words in orange. Deception is permitted... but not by disguising your unit as aid workers.

I'll read this through again for other possible concerns, but as usual, I predict they'll be more nitpicks than substantive problems.

[Separatist Peoples]

8. Nothing in this law shall be construed as preventing ruses or deceptions in armed conflict that do not rely upon deception by inviting the confidence of an enemy with regard to protected status under World Assembly law.

To the contrary, ambassador, I would say that the clause is rather clear. Disguise and deceit is perfectly allowed so long as that the protected status under WA legislation is not used in said disguise or ruse....

For the sake of complete and total unambiguity, and the aesthetic virtue of not repeating words in close proximity, all that's really necessary is removal of the two words in orange. Deception is permitted... but not by disguising your unit as aid workers.

I'll read this through again for other possible concerns, but as usual, I predict they'll be more nitpicks than substantive problems.

"Okokokokok, I adjusted the clause. Even used a recent word of the day of mine."

[TimberWolves]

To whom it may concern

While, on behalf of the beloved green zone and her proud military history, agree with many of the points presented in this bill, there are some modifications that must be made.

First and foremost, the restrictions on civilian vehicles are unusual at best. Dressing as a non-combatant, with intentions of using it to mislead the enemy, is morally wrong at best. However, the commandeering of vehicles is often a necessity in combat. While we try to keep our men lavishly equipped with vehicles, we have found that, often, it's not a matter of choice, but a matter of life.

Perhaps limiting the use of civilian vehicles to non-combat roles, or preventing their use with weapons, would be more reasonable. For instance, our current doctrine allows for the use of civilian vehicles, marked or unmarked, to be used in the evacuation of casualties. They have also, in the past, been used as crude battering rams for building entry, although this practice is for the most part outdated.

Marshall Zho, Timberwolves International Bureau

[Separatist Peoples]

To whom it may concern

While, on behalf of the beloved green zone and her proud military history, agree with many of the points presented in this bill, there are some modifications that must be made.

First and foremost, the restrictions on civilian vehicles are unusual at best. Dressing as a non-combatant, with intentions of using it to mislead the enemy, is morally wrong at best. However, the commandeering of vehicles is often a necessity in combat. While we try to keep our men lavishly equipped with vehicles, we have found that, often, it's not a matter of choice, but a matter of life.

Perhaps limiting the use of civilian vehicles to non-combat roles, or preventing their use with weapons, would be more reasonable. For instance, our current doctrine allows for the use of civilian vehicles, marked or unmarked, to be used in the evacuation of casualties. They have also, in the past, been used as crude battering rams for building entry, although this practice is for the most part outdated.

Marshall Zho, Timberwolves International Bureau

"Ambassador, you can still do all of that. You just have to mark them as being under your control. Hanging a flag or painting an emblem is perfectly reasonable, and accommodations for this have already been made."

[Mundiferrum]

To the contrary, ambassador, I would say that the clause is rather clear. Disguise and deceit is perfectly allowed so long as that the protected status under WA legislation is not used in said disguise or ruse.

However, I do agree that the 'in times of war' bit could lead to trouble in cases just as you have described.

"Eh, I honestly don't think that should be implicitly illegal, using perfidy prior to a conflict starting. For one, it would be a totally uphill battle, and far worse than the ones I've fought so far. Nations would balk at that sort of limit. Secondly, it shouldn't really be a case of invoking protections to gain an advantage, as most of those protections are only in effect during conflict."

Besides, if the nation you're gonna declare war against is gonna be difficult enough a fight that you'll have to use those tactics, chances are you won't get much of an advantage through those anyway -- whatever arms they already have you'll never be able to access, and it'll be bloody obvious to them if you're smuggling in anything bigger than a water pistol. And technically, these rules only involve combatants, who won't be combatants until combat officially begins, ie war is declared (or at least that's how I see it).

[Separatist Peoples]

"Eh, I honestly don't think that should be implicitly illegal, using perfidy prior to a conflict starting. For one, it would be a totally uphill battle, and far worse than the ones I've fought so far. Nations would balk at that sort of limit. Secondly, it shouldn't really be a case of invoking protections to gain an advantage, as most of those protections are only in effect during conflict."

Besides, if the nation you're gonna declare war against is gonna be difficult enough a fight that you'll have to use those tactics, chances are you won't get much of an advantage through those anyway -- whatever arms they already have you'll never be able to access, and it'll be bloody obvious to them if you're smuggling in anything bigger than a water pistol. And technically, these rules only involve combatants, who won't be combatants until combat officially begins, ie war is declared (or at least that's how I see it).

"That was my opinion. Otherwise I might be banning soldiers from wearing civvies off duty."